Dude Weather Subscribe to Secrets Minneapolis / St. Paul

The Thousandth Word

Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Starchitecture

Share

Art museums are host to two species of rats, those that skulk in the basements, gnawing on the art in storage, and, lower on the food chain, the people who handle the art. “Museum rat” is trade slang for the stagehands, the workers who hump crates of art off trucks at the loading dock, maneuver sculpture into position, hang paintings, set up lights, build pedestals, perpetually paint and repaint the walls of the galleries, and generally do the bidding of the museum’s commandants. Museum rats are the movers, but not the shakers, of the art world. Most of them are artists of one sort or another themselves, which is to say, bust-outs and delinquents in t-shirts printed with the names of bands and film festivals you never heard of.

During the nineties, I was one of that floating pool of feckless souls in the Twin Cities who get hired when a museum has two weeks to go before the opening of a show and too few hands to get the work done (the custom is to hire you for a stretch but then lay you off before you qualify for benefits or pensions). Most of my employment was at the University of Minnesota Art Museum, which before it transmogrified into the Frederick Weisman Art Museum consisted of a series of grubby galleries and offices strung along the fourth floor corridors of the moldering Northrup Auditorium. When the museum moved to its new quarters in Frank Gehry’s destroyer-class WAM--the crumpled sketch that served as the tuneup for the Guggenheim’s aircraft carrier in Bilbao--I was one of the deckhands, one of the crew who installed the billboard-size works by Roy Lichtenstein and James Rosenquist that hang in the front lobby and gallery of the museum. And it was I who with clammy male hands in white cotton gloves hung Georgia O’Keefe’s Oriental Poppies, said at the time to be worth two million bucks.

One of Gehry’s early sketches for the Weisman, scribbled on a cocktail napkin and since preserved with the reverence accorded a holy relic, was seized upon by the museum for a logo, hoping with this to create a perception of the place as a hotbed of spontaneously combusting creativity. The with-it acronym, WAM, strives desperately for the same effect—POW! For all that, the place is basically just a gift shop (the first thing you encounter on entering the building) with a small teaching museum attached. Besides teaching students how to make purchases of tasteful gifts and stand frowning thoughtfully before works of art, the Weisman also makes money by hiring itself out as a catering hall for conferences, receptions, yuppie nuptials, etc. Often when I came in to work on mornings after one of these events, the floors of the galleries would be garnished with wet bits of wilted lettuce and little gobs of buttercream from pieces of sheet cake accidentally flipped off paper plates the night before.

Gehry’s buildings, in my book, are architecture’s version of torn designer jeans. They imply radical experience without actually having to go through it. They gesticulate without it meaning anything. Inside the Weisman, the yawing walls reflect the gratuitously skewed planes and pointless curves of all the tin-snipped bling hung off the outside. In the museum’s carpentry shop, where I worked, the wall is canted uselessly inward; anything as sensible as a plumb wall would have been too mundane. I never measured to be sure, but it always felt like the shop’s longest dimension is the height of its absurdly unusable vertical space. The shop has no windows either—no eyes. . . it was like working inside a dumpster with the lid closed.

Rhapsodizing over the Weisman when the building opened fourteen years ago, however, critic Herbert Muschamp of The New York Times pronounced the new museum’s galleries “the five most beautiful rooms in the world.” I rubbed my eyes to be sure I’d read this right, but this was before I understood anything about criticism’s contributions to the science of buzz. The process by which a work is pronounced great is compounded of many sidewise glances at what other people think. Gathering mass, the consensus keeps snowballing, burying us in an avalanche of conviction that such and such a thing is so -– it must be. . . someone more important than us said it is.

It fell, then, to a couple of obscure museum rats, two anonymous art schleppers, to do something to subvert some part of the world’s received wisdom. One lunchtime a few weeks before the museum’s grand opening, they decided to circumvent the curators and put up a favorite work of their own as the very first picture ever to hang in the new galleries. The work was a portrait they’d found —actually a jigsaw puzzle, still wrapped in cellophane--of Barney the Dinosaur, sporting the beret of an artiste, a pallet and brush in his purple mitts. Following Barney’s installation as the museum’s maiden work of art, one of the perps set up a music stand in the middle of the echoing gallery and with great verve proceeded to play a rousing march on his dented old farting tuba. It was the high point of my life at the WAM.

Now, whenever I bike along the opposite bank of the river, I look across to the Weisman and think of that dinged-up tuba and the wags I used to work with in the building’s lower depths. As it happens, a fenced-off stretch of the riverbank opposite the museum has this past year been serving as a storage lot for some of the violently twisted steel recovered from the collapse of the I-35 W bridge. From its vantage point across the river, the Weisman, a building that itself appears to have been cobbled together from gum wrappers, looks out upon all that contorted steel rusting in the weeds across the river. Last year, Gehry was sued for dereliction after a $300 million research building he did for M.I.T. in 2004 started falling apart a few months after it opened. Before time stole his thunder, the great and terrible Ozymandias declared, “Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair,” but maybe what he meant to say was “repair.”


16 Reader Comments

coyote giggleing (not verified)02:31pm
May 28
Yessss! That's the way to stir up the art juices! bravo c-4
Anonymous (not verified)02:32pm
May 28
Your article (for which your inspiration appears to be some sort of vendetta against your former employer) makes casual references to the I-35W bridge collapse and includes photographs of the wreckage in a context that clearly shows your distaste for the museum and its architecture. In the last paragraph, there even seems to be a pithy comparative study between the aesthetics of debris and those of the museum’s exterior. Despite how I may feel about the stance you have taken on the Weisman Art Museum (incidentally, I disagree wholeheartedly), I am strongly offended by the frivolous use of this tragedy to further your editorial purposes. Perhaps you could have chosen a way to express your distaste for the museum in a way that didn’t exploit a disastrous event that left Minnesotans grieving for lost loved ones. If you’re going to burn bridges, please leave the tragedy of I-35W out of it.
Anonymous in reflection (not verified)12:08pm
May 29
Let me blink my eyes and look at this again? Did you not just do the same with the "flaming bridges" allusion? As for the "tragedy of I-35W", don't you feel the need to keep that in our view as we look at what we as a society do with our communal actions that fail us? We the people were too cheap to maintain the bridge, too distracted to tend to it's changing stress load and now too wimpy to hold our leadership accountable? Fierce resolution to never have another bridge fall can only happen if we do not shove our tragedy under the carpet of the foaming river,..... coyote on the bone gnaw
Kara Sabatke (not verified)08:10pm
May 28
I have to say disappointment is my first thought that comes to my mind when I read the opening blog to the "NEW" Rake. To say that we would have a revival of new innovative thinking, ideas and what I wanted to believe was a breath of fresh air was quickly stifled with what I interpreted of one person's opinion about the architecture of the Weisman (which is such a tired topic) and a sad critique of the gift shop (which actually gives life to our community being able to see Art for free). I was excited to hear that the magazine was making its way back into our lives, lives of those who have lived and breathed Minneapolis since we first took a breath, but if this is the kind of material we have to look forward to... Lets just say... We may need to go back to the drawing board.
Soon-Young Kim (not verified)08:19pm
May 28
i completely agree. the 'vicious circle' is supposed to be this cutting edge, scathingly-frank arts criticism, but all this author offers is thinly-veiled resentment mixed with unoriginal feedback on the weisman (and gehry) that we've all heard ad nauseum. next, please!
The "Vicious and ever expanding Scanvenger" (not verified)11:59am
May 29
"One of Gehry’s early sketches for the Weisman, scribbled on a cocktail napkin and since preserved with the reverence accorded a holy relic, was seized upon by the museum for a logo, hoping with this to create a perception of the place as a hotbed of spontaneously combusting creativity. The with-it acronym, WAM, strives desperately for the same effect—POW! For all that, the place is basically just a gift shop (the first thing you encounter on entering the building) with a small teaching museum attached. Besides teaching students how to make purchases of tasteful gifts and stand frowning thoughtfully before works of art, the Weisman also makes money by hiring itself out as a catering hall for conferences, receptions, yuppie nuptials, etc. Often when I came in to work on mornings after one of these events, the floors of the galleries would be garnished with wet bits of wilted lettuce and little gobs of buttercream from pieces of sheet cake accidentally flipped off paper plates the night before." I would venture to say that this writer is dead on on what ails our ART community. The "WAM" ought to be the at the forefront of searching for ART. Instead it is a "tourist destination" and "club events center". Minnesota Mediocrity, what does that mean to you? Artists need to lay the 'call' for excellence in the substance of what is ART at the feet of those that have led us up to this date. It begins by asking the "buildings" to express the ideal in ART. The WAM fails to be the ART vessel that it should have been. The "WHY" is the next question. Can you answer? coyote infinity
Sam (not verified)10:52pm
May 28
Clearly, the point has been lost on many here (or else "frank" is okay as long as you agree with the author). This essay is about facade and foundation. I am astounded every time I talk with a gallery/museum preparator to learn of the work expected of them and their employees in the installation/maintenance of artworks. But that is what it takes to maintain the crisp, pure facade of the art world. Assistants toil anonymously in less-than-ideal circumstances to create works of art condemning some social inequality or extolling the inevitability of globalization and then ship the pieces to museums which employ their own workers to re-assemble the pieces, topping it all off with a descriptive label complete with only the "artist's" name. But art is more like the real world than we can bear, the real work at the base of the pyramid is never as sexy as some would imagine it to be, but it is the foundation which supports the spire. Take the Weisman. It looks pretty on the surface, and may even dazzle in the evening light. But under the cold light of day, it is poor architecture because it has no foundation in the functional. It even strikes me as barely useful. It is the work of a decadent age, preferring the illusion of the New to something grounded in the Origin. It is a building that wants to be a sculpture, and divided against itself, it collapses (metaphorically). The juxtaposition with the wreckage of I-35 is apropo. Both are beautiful in their own way (and I don't consider it untoward to note as much. It may be insensitive, but when did that become out of bounds in art?). The curves and negative space of the collapsed girders are as seductively beautiful as the curves of Gehry's architecture, but they are a beauty of decline and disintegration. (This decline, if anything, has only increased since the construction of the building. Gehry is still getting plenty of work and much of the new architecture these days suffers from the same deficiencies so to my mind, it remains quite relevant.) Personal, anecdotal writing is always more dangerous and ambiguous - I hope we see more of it. I'm tired of academic, safe and "appropriate" arts commentary. Give me something with the stuff of life in it, innards and all.
Peggy (not verified)12:25pm
May 29
Love the tuba/Barney story, not offended at the juxtaposition of twisted bridge metal with the Wiesman exterior, can even sympathize with the "museum rat" victim mentality, and yes, I even understand the somewhat murky (veiled?) metaphor running through this blog. Have to agree with the responses pointing out that a critique of the architecture is a bit tired and predictable, but hey, I don't mind recycling. What I do wonder at, however, is the sense of offense at the activities that, while not directly celebrating the art on the walls, helps to pay to keep that art up there and in the public domain, so to speak. Every museum in town has a gift shop and I dare say the Walker's is the most lavish of all, even if it isn't just inside the front door. Every museum in town is used for social events and I would guess the errant piece of lettuce is occasionally found the next morning on the floor at MIA. Not to mention the crushed cookies at the Children's Museum and the run-away grape at the Science Museum. Art will always rise above commerce but it will not survive without it. The days of the Medici are long, long past. I'm just happy the Weisman is named after a generous individual rather than TCF or Target.
Coyote giggleing (not verified)05:47pm
May 29
"Tired and predictable" what a funny way to negate a valid point about our collective ART deficiency. Don't you think that if we keep bringing it up the dolts who make those kind of ART decisions will start asking themselves the hard questions of what does and does not pass for Art here in the Twin Loons? I love the Museum Shops as a whole. They often carry the more substantial "art" that is actually consumable; but then I am induced to think if that might not be our collective flaw; we go to museums to "consume art" not to see it? What do you think Peggy; have we maybe wrecked the perception of ART by the practice of "consuming it"? Drove through Iowa once, had lunch and ordered fresh corn from California?
Mpls Simpleton (not verified)01:23pm
May 29
Glenn Gordon...Puting the F back into Art.
Gregory J. Scott (not verified)05:17pm
May 29
Ah yes, the city that clamors so loudly for daring arts criticism is quick to bring the hate when someone attempts to actually give it to them. I didn't see that coming. Someone should write an article about the senseless hostility between critics and artists, and ask why they don't band together as "compatriots in the struggle to keep alive the dying, flickering light of artistic goodness in our culture." How quickly we've all forgotten your original post, Michael. Stimulating read, Mr. Gordon. Thanks.
Gregory J. Scott (not verified)05:31pm
May 29
I mean, skewering a ranty, mean-spirited critique with ranty, mean-spirited comments seems less than helpful. Like a vicious circle or something.
Michael Fallon05:58pm
May 29
Well, personally, I'm all for spirited critiques of spirited critiques. It would be perhaps more useful, however, and indeed more gutsy, if the critique-critiquers were brave enough to stand by their comments by signing their real names. After all, Glenn had cojones enough to put his name behind his comments, so responders to him should give him the honor of doing the same. Signing off as "anonymous" or constantly hiding/renaming oneself really does little to add to the overall dialogue. Just my, honestly signed, two cents worth.
Michael Fallon06:15pm
May 31
I've removed a pseudonymous comment from this blog posting. It included insulting personal attacks against writers of this blog, as well as other commenters to it, and the writer did not stand behind his strange and ad hominem attacks by signing a real name. Any future comments that are incendiary, overly confrontational, bizarre, or insulting to any participant in this blog--writer or commenter--and particularly comments of this sort by anonymous or hidden commenters, will be striken from the electronic record. This policy is not intended to censor, but to ensure we keep as welcoming a tone here so all will feel to participate. We welcome all commenters to state your opinions, passionate and frank, about what is posted on this site, but we request that you always keep a civil tone with each other. Thanks, Michael Fallon

Note to the coyote who's been attempting to use the comments on this blog for his own ends: Since I am committed to keeping the comments as open and friendly as possible--to allow the widest range of commenters--I have another, better idea for how you can use this venue to open discussion about some of the issues you are interested in. Please email me directly at our group email: thousandthword(at)gmail(dot)com so we can discuss my idea.

Michael Fallon06:46pm
May 31
I was reminded today, upon reading the NYT as I sat for lunch across the street from the Carnegie Museum of Art in Pittsburgh, of various layers of irony in Glenn's take on the Weisman Museum. Peter Schjeldahl, the great art critic at the New Yorker magazine who grew up in Minnesota, once bemoaned the fact that his adoptive home town of New York did not have a major building designed by Gehry. "Even Minneapolis has a Gehry," he wrote, about the time that the new Gehry-designed, floating Guggenheim museum design was falling through. You could almost palpably feel, dripping from his pen, the disdain for what he perceived as the provincialism of his real home town, and his self-proclaimed right as an adoptive, cultural-climbing New Yorker to be the chief arbiter of sophistication and taste (by identifying everything that is not )... A NYT piece today by Nicolas Ouroussoff echoed this received critical wisdom from the denizens on high (who mostly come from the provinces): New York still needs its Gehry building. Never mind what Gordon points out: the technical failings of Gehry's buildings, their tendency to look quickly dated, the overadulation and empty sensationalization heaped on them, their impracticality and lack of function. Don't forget too, Gehry established his career from Santa Monica, Callifornia, which, when he moved there mid-last century, was still sleepy and unknown enough to be just another province. Ironically, Gordon suggests it's the opposite--a kind of Emperor's New Clothes effect--that's at play in the culture with its overregard for Gehry's buildings today. Because the anointed gatekeepers of taste make their pronouncements, the mass of us--in our insecurity--accept them, completely ignoring the very input from our own eyes and intellect. Which is the true provincialism in the end? (Perhaps only history can be the judge.)
Glen Ross (not verified)12:40pm
Jun 3
"Gehry’s buildings, in my book, are architecture’s version of torn designer jeans. They imply radical experience without actually having to go through it." The perfect metaphor. Architecture has used, semiotically, allusions to reality (think the Acropolis or, closer to home, Louis Sullivan's Owatonna Bank), and even reality itself (Mies' Seagram Building, eg). Gehry, otoh, offers riffs on illusion. You're not quite sure what it's supposed to be, but you're pretty sure it's fake.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <i> <b> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
By entering in the words in the captcha image, you help us prevent automated spam submissions and keep the site tidy.

Blogs

Sports

Baseball:
Warning Track Power by Alex Halsted
Sports:
On the Ball by Britt Robson

Society

Weather:
Dude Weather by Jimmy Gaines

A&E

Fiction:
Write Now! by Terry Faust

Retired

Hockey:
Spazz Dad by Todd Smith
Style:
Hook & Eye
Misc:
Is This News?
Fiction:
Yo, Ivanhoe by Brad Zellar
Food:
Consider the Egg by Stephanie March
Wine:
Beyond the Cask
Food:
Food Fight!
Media:
To the Slaughter
Misc:
Outrage by Staff
Food:
Chef's Table
Guest Commentary:
Just Passing Through
Humor:
Spazz Dad by Todd Smith
Cars:
Road Rake by Chris Birt
Commentary:
Read Menace by Tom Bartel
Society:
The Adventures of Melinda by Melinda Jacobs
Politics:
Defenestrator by Rich Goldsmith
Food:
Breaking Bread by Jeremy Iggers & Ann Bauer
Books:
Cracking Spines by Max Ross
Music:
Hear, Hear by Staff
Art:
The Vicious Circle by 6 Critics
Secrets:
Secrets of the Day by Kate Iverson
Theater:
Seen in the City by Staff
Film:
Talk About Talkies by Staff